229390

==== PAGE 1 ====

PUNNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Application No.: Applicant: Proposal: Site Address : 14/01133/B Mr Tim Coulter & Mr James Coulter Alterations and first floor extension to dwelling La Serene Little Mill Road Onchan Isle Of Man IM4 5BQ Case Officer: Photo Taken : Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Mr Chris Balmer 14.10.2014 14.10.2014 Officer Delegation Officer's Report 1.0 THE APPUCATION SITE 1.1 The application site comprises the curtilage of La Serene, Little Mill Road, Onchan which is a large detached bungalow located on the southern side of Little Mill Road. 2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for alterations and first floor extension to dwelling. The existing property has an overall width of 27 metres, a maximum depth of 13.2 metres and a ridge height of 5 metres. The proposed works would not increase the width of the property, but would increase the height of three quarters of the property by 2 metres by the erection of an additional first floor. The finish of the extension would be a smooth painted render to match the existing property with grey concrete tiles. All new windows would be UPVc in construction. 2.2 Other alterations include the conversion of the existing double garage into additional living accommodation. 3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is located within a wider area of land that is designated as open space under the Onchan Local Plan. Due to the site location, zoning and the type of proposal, the following policies are relevant for consideration:- 3.2 Environment Policy 1 states: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative." 3.3 Housing Policy 16 states: 'The extension of non-traditional dwellings or those of poor or inappropriate form will not generally be permitted where this would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public." 3,4 19 November 2014 14/01133/B Page 1 of 4

==== PAGE 2 ====

4,0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The application site has been the subject of a previous planning application which is considered material to the assessment of this current planning application: Alterations, erection of extension and first fioor extension to dwelling - 11/00123/B - 4.2 APPROVED 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Onchan Commissioners (received on 15.10.2014) have no objection. 5.1 5.2 DOI Highway Services have no objection (received on 15.10.2014). 6.0 ASSESSMENT The key issue with the application is the potential visual Impact the proposed extension would have upon the countryside. 6.1 In relation to the potential visual impact, the main policies which need consideration are Environment Policy 1 and Housing Policy 16. Environment Policy 1 indicates that the countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake and that development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative. Housing Policy 16 specifically deals with the extension of non-traditional dwellings or those of poor or inappropriate form. This policy ensures extension to such properties will not generally be allowed, If the proposals would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public. 6.2 It is noted that a substantial extension was approved on the 14th March 2011 (expires 14th March 2015). This proposal involved a full two storey extension over the existing ground fioor, more than the current proposal and would have resulted in a greater floor area. However, that proposal resulted in a dwelling with similar proportions and form of a traditional Manx farm house design with three upper windows over a central doorway flanked by a single widow either side. Gable end chimneys were also included in the scheme. Furthermore, the previous approval incorporated the existing built form with new extension to form two wings either side of the main dwelling house. The finish of the dwelling was a painted render, with use of Manx stonework to the front bay windows and front two storey projecting gable. The existing concrete roof tiles where proposed to be replaced with natural slate. The submission also included to replace the existing windows and new windows with traditional styled windows. 6.3 This new proposal does not propos®.any of the benefits of the previous application. There are no traditional aspects included (gable end chimneys, slate roof, Manx stone, traditional window styles). Essentially, this new submission results in replicating the existing modern bungalow, but adding an additional floor, replicating the inappropriate aspects which include the design, proportion and form of the existing building, hipped roof design, picture windows and finishes of the existing bungalow. No architectural detail is proposed and is neither of an innovative design or traditional in appearance. 6.4 6.5 An argument for allowing the proposal Is it is mostly screened from public views. This is mainly due to the large Le^i hedgerow which existing along the western boundary and which run along either side^ of the driveway. Furthermore there are more native tree/hedgerows which run along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site. 6.6 However, consideration needs to be made of the principles behind the policies, in this case Housing Policy 16. Paragraph 8,12.2 of the lOM Strategic Plan indicates that: "...In the 19 November 2014 14/01133/B Page 2 of 4

==== PAGE 3 ====

case of non-traditional properties, where these are of poor or unsympathetic appearance, extensions which would increase the impact of the property will generally not be acceptable. It may be preferable to consider the redevelopment of non-traditional dwellings or properties of poor form with buildings of a more traditional style and in these cases, the Department may consider an increase in size of the replacement property over and above the size of the building to be replaced, where improvements to the appearance of the property would justify this." The previous application arguably did result in a visual improvement to the existing property and the area, given its proportion, form, finish and design did have far more traditional aspects and therefore although the dwelling was larger than the existing dwelling, it had an overall benefit to the visual appearance of the site and countryside. This new proposal does not. This will only result is a significantly greater mass of inappropriate built development on the site, which certainly would have the potential to increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public. 6.7 6,8 ^ It is important to consider that a large proportion of the screening is provided by Leyfiti hedgerow/trees which in themselves are not appropriate features or native species within the Manx Countryside. Accordingly, it is unlikely there removal in the future would be resisted by the Forestry Division. If this was to occur, then the new extensions to the existing dwelling would be very apparent from public views. In this case, it is consider relying solely on large amounts of existing inappropriate landscaping, to ensure the hiding of the proposed inappropriate development is not acceptable and is not a practice which should be supported. RECOMMENDATION Overall, given the proposed extensions proportion, form, size, finish and height, theses will increase the amount of built development on the site, and therefore it is considered the development would have a detrimental impact upon the character and quality of the countryside which is protected from inappropriate development for its own sake. Accordingly, it is considered the proposal would be contrary to Environment Policy 1 and Housing Policy 7.0 7.1 16. 8.0 PARTY STATUS In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application; Highway Services, and the Local Authority in whose district the land the subject of the application sits. 8.1 Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 19.11.2014 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval 19 November 2014 14/01133/B Page 3 of 4

==== PAGE 4 ====

N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals R 1. Given the proposed extensions proportion, form, size, finish and height, these^ wiil increase the amount of built development on the site, and therefore it is considered the development would have a detrimental impact upon the character and quality of the countryside which is protected from inappropriate development for its own sake, Accordingly, it is considered the proposal would be contrary to Environment Policy 1 and Housing Policy 16 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control /Head of Development Management/ Senior Planning Officer. Decision Made: Refused Date: Determining officer (delete as appropriate) Signed :... Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer Signed ; Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer Signed :... Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control Head of Development Management Signed ;... Jennifer Chance 19 November 2014 14/01133/B Page 4 of 4